Quote:
Originally Posted by transplant99
I would agree...but then its up to those who enjoy it to make it better, not the taxpayers.
|
There are some things out there that you just can't expect to be self-sustaining, but it serves society for the better to have them around. Things like roads and health care are heavily subsidized too, and the true costs aren't necessarily past down to their users, but they benefit our society.
I think people have to get past this idea that if they don't personally use/do something, then that thing is useless. Art will always be one of those sectors that will need benefactors. Great pieces of art hardly every make sense economically, but I'm not sure why that is such a problem. Just think of all the things you visit while on vacation to a foreign country, I bet at least half of them are pieces of architecture or art that were heavily subsidized....and yet it's what makes those cities special.
When people come here to NY, they go visit the MET, the Natural History museum, the Statue of Liberty, the Guggenheim, Central Park.....none of those things are necessary to survive, but they sure as hell make life more enjoyable.